When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

@cicerone imposter,

So you want to replace what you call 'gridlock" with a rubber stamp for liberal policies?

@Baldimo,

What makes you think there's a rubber stamp for liberal policies when both parties vote on legislation? You must not understand how congress works, because not all politicians vote in lock step.
The 114th Congress enacted the least number of laws, thanks to the republicans. They're playing party politics rather than compromising on issues.
McConnell said he was going to make Obama a one term president. Since he's failed at that, they're making sure Congress is broken with their gridlock.
This country needs leadership that works for the people of this country; not party politics that diminishes the needs of all Americans and the smooth running of this government.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-kull/as-congress-stalls-on the_b_9368660.html

GOP is the party of gridlock.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/fareed-zakaria-the-party-of-gridlock/2014/02/14/308fb75a-9590-11e3-8461-8a24c7bf0653_story.html?utm_term=.1dce8945e00f

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

First you say this:

Quote:

What makes you think there's a rubber stamp for liberal policies when both parties vote on legislation?

Then you say this:

Quote:

The 114th Congress enacted the least number of laws, thanks to the republicans.

So I'll say it again. You don't want "gridlock" you want a rubber stamp for liberal policies. You don't want compromise, you want a congress that only passes laws and regulations you want passed. Screw the people who elected those from the other party, you want your way.

1 Reply

@Blickers,

Bullshit...find the exact quote and put up or shut up.

2 Replies

@Baldimo,

Thats BULLSHIT. Where were your bipartisan Teapublicans when they shut down the government, or wasted time and money trying to kill the ACA fourty or fifty times, or when they held Benghazi investigations five or six times with no traction, or holding up the first responders bill from Sept 11, the holiest holiday of the far freaking right?

1 Reply

@giujohn,

Quote:

Re: Blickers (Post 6261942)
Bullshit...find the exact quote and put up or shut up.

Its an opinion dummy. Do you think if Hungary or Czechoslovakia were in Nato it would have been a good thing to ignore the Soviet tanks?

0 Replies

Finally, I think the general election has started. Hillary is sending out Warren, Biden, Michelle Obama, Bill Clinton and Sanders.

Clinton Campaign Highlights Surrogate Gap

0 Replies

@bobsal u1553115,

Quote:

Thats BULLSHIT.

Only in your opinion.

Quote:

Where were your bipartisan Teapublicans when they shut down the government

You mean when they didn't pass a law that Obama and the left wanted so the govt shutdown.

Quote:

wasted time and money trying to kill the ACA fourty or fifty times

The only good the ACA did was allow more people to get insurance, it has failed at every other objective it was suppose to fix. Insurers are loosing money and pulling out of the exchanges. How many states have had failed state exchanges and now are down to only a few selections for people to choose from.

Quote:

when they held Benghazi investigations five or six times with no traction

No traction from the left, the right doesn't agree and we know they lied to the US public. A video was at fault... LIE!!! Even Hillary's daughter knew from and email Hillary sent that it wasn't due to a video...

Quote:

holding up the first responders bill from Sept 11, the holiest holiday of the far freaking right?

You celebrate holidays, you don't celebrate tragic events, unless you are a lefty liberal who plays are being an old republican.

Are you done cherry picking? How many bills were passed onto the Senate when Harry Reid was in charge and were not even brought to a vote on the floor? There were over 200 bills voted on in the House and passed to Reid but he made sure they were held up in committee and never saw the light of day. You guys on the left did your own little form of "gridlock" but you don't have a problem with that, the bills came from the GOP.

1 Reply

@giujohn,

Quote giujohn:

Quote:

Bullshit...find the exact quote and put up or shut up.

About Trump saying he's going to break up NATO? Right here, (it's only a minute and 17 seconds long:

1 Reply

Dallas Morning News endorses Clinton for president
Source: Politico

http://static2.politico.com/dims4/default/6623718/2147483647/resize/1160x%3E/quality/90/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.politico.com%2Fb0%2F90%2F9d277b9c484590af23e2061faf04%2F07-hillary-clinton-28-ap-1160.jpg

For the first time since before World War II, the Dallas Morning News endorsed a Democrat, Hillary Clinton, for president. | AP Photo

By Nick Gass

09/07/16 06:35 AM EDT

Breaking with decades of encouraging readers to vote for the Republican presidential candidate in the general election, the Dallas Morning News on Wednesday endorsed Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump, whose editorial board previously suggested was not a real Republican.

"We don't come to this decision easily. This newspaper has not recommended a Democrat for the nation's highest office since before World War II — if you're counting, that's more than 75 years and nearly 20 elections," the editorial board wrote. "The party's over-reliance on government and regulation to remedy the country's ills is at odds with our belief in private-sector ingenuity and innovation. Our values are more about individual liberty, free markets and a strong national defense."

The editorial board had endorsed the Republican nominee in every presidential election dating back to World War II, save for the 1964 election when it remained neutral between Democratic President (and Texan) Lyndon B. Johnson and Republican challenger Barry Goldwater.

........................ the editorial board contrasted her "experience in actual governance" to Trump.

"Resume vs. resume, judgment vs. judgment, this election is no contest," the op-ed continued, making note of the host of Republican hands backing Clinton, including Jim Glassman, the founding director of the George W. Bush Institute in Dallas...................................

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/dallas-morning-news-endorses-clinton-for-president-227815

0 Replies

@Baldimo,

How many times did a Democratic Congress take Reagan's or Bush's policy to a re-vote even twice let alone forty times? How many times did Congress take Iran-Contra to hearings? ONCE. How many times did Reed ever say, "I'm going to make this President a failure"? NEVER.

If facts aren't working for you - keep working up your dunder, right?

1 Reply

@Blickers,

Blickboy says:

Quote:

Trump has flat out said that he's going to implement Vladimir Putin's foreign policy and have the US withdraw from NATO.

What bullshit... What Trump flat out said what if they didn't pay up as per the agreement to pay 2% of their GDP and they should defend themselves. He said absolutely nothing about instituting Putin's policies

1 Reply

@giujohn,

Having NATO nations "defend themselves" constitutes breaking up NATO, since the whole purpose of NATO-and it's strength, as shown by sixty years of success-is that an attack on one NATO country is to be treated as an attack on all NATO countries. Financial obligations have nothing to do with it. Russia has not dared to try NATO in all this time because with this one-for-all-and-all-for-one philosophy, NATO was a big brick wall stopping Russia's expansion plans.

Any leader worth the name, if he genuinely had a beef about financial issues within NATO, would discuss them behind closed doors, so the brick wall remains intact. The fact that Trump throws that out there, repeats it and even amplifies it later, shows that he not only isn't interested in NATO staying an effective brick wall, he is signalling NATO's enemies-Putin foremost among them-that cracks are developing in NATO that can be exploited. And who better to exploit those cracks than a former ruthless KGB agent like Putin?

3 Replies

@Blickers,

So then you agree that you were wrong in saying that Trump flat out said that he was going to adopt Putin's policies and that you were just demonstrating some liberal histrionics

1 Reply

@giujohn,

You are intellectually dishonest. Blickers explained in clear and understandable language Trump's words and what it implies and how it encourages Putin in his dreams of getting rid of NATO. There is no liberal/conservative side to it, it is not a partisan issue.

Quote:

Republicans rip Trump over NATO plan

One GOP lawmaker tells POLITICO, 'Comments like this are not only ill-informed, they’re dangerous.'

Donald Trump's latest broadside against NATO, the military alliance that has long served as a pillar of Western unity, has further aggravated the disunity in the Republican Party as he prepares to accept its nomination for president.

In an interview with The New York Times, Trump said the United States shouldn't automatically come to the defense of fellow NATO members if they are attacked unless those countries have paid their bills to the alliance. That approach flies in the face of one of NATO's bedrock principles, Article 5, which requires NATO states to come to the aid of a fellow member under assault.

The comments drew scorn not only from American allies but also from several top Republicans, undermining the party's efforts to project unity during its national convention this week in Cleveland. They were published less than a day before Trump is due to deliver a major speech at the convention, and they further fueled the perception that Trump is a lackey for Russian President Vladimir Putin.

"I disagree with that," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who was in Cleveland, said of Trump's comments. "NATO is the most important military alliance in world history. I want to reassure our NATO allies that if any of them get attacked, we'll be there to defend them."

Republican Rep. Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, speaking during a POLITICO panel event at the convention, said Trump's remarks made it harder for him to vote for the real estate mogul come November.

"You have allies right now, I mean I have friends that, you know, serve in parliament in places like Estonia, that every day worry about the Russians deciding that this is the time to re-annex and take them back,” said Kinzinger, a former Air Force pilot. “And comments like this are not only ill-informed, they’re dangerous.”

source

There is more at the above source.

It really isn't a mystery of why Putin is doing all he can to get Trump elected, it makes perfect sense.

2 Replies

@revelette2,

Unfortunately, depending on the poll, it shows Trump leading. In addition to being a racial bigot, Trump can't be trusted with the nuclear code. He's too unpredictable, and he has already said "if we have nukes, we should be able to use them." He just doesn't understand the destructive power of those weapons. He just doesn't care how many innocent people it will kill, and how it will level cities that will be unlivable for decades to come. He has no soul.

2 Replies

@Blickers,

Blickers wrote:

Having NATO nations "defend themselves" constitutes breaking up NATO, since the whole purpose of NATO-and it's strength, as shown by sixty years of success-is that an attack on one NATO country is to be treated as an attack on all NATO countries. Financial obligations have nothing to do with it. Russia has not dared to try NATO in all this time because with this one-for-all-and-all-for-one philosophy, NATO was a big brick wall stopping Russia's expansion plans.

Any leader worth the name, if he genuinely had a beef about financial issues within NATO, would discuss them behind closed doors, so the brick wall remains intact. The fact that Trump throws that out there, repeats it and even amplifies it later, shows that he not only isn't interested in NATO staying an effective brick wall, he is signalling NATO's enemies-Putin foremost among them-that cracks are developing in NATO that can be exploited. And who better to exploit those cracks than a former ruthless KGB agent like Putin?

The problem of the failure of our NATO allies to live up to their formal committments to NATO spending is at least 45 years old now. These failures have been pervasive and consistent on the part of out NATO allies, large and small, and the issue has been raised by previous Presidents with varying degrees of success. This was a very serious issue in our strategic planning during the 1980s and 1990s as I directly observed. After the collapse of the Soviet Union - primarily a result of its own internal contradictions and also its demonstrable inability to keep up with the defense buildup initiated by President Regan - the issue faded from importance and notice. Now with an obviously resurgent Russia and the issue has become meaningful again. The consistent disunity of our European allies and the supreme fcklessness of our current president have combined to make it a serious issue and Trump is right to state it so clearly .

In your bombastic rantings you oddly don't appear to notice the contradiction between this and your exaggerated and distorted claims that Trump is Putin's pawn.

1 Reply

@revelette2,

Problem is he said that Trump said flat out I repeat flat out that v Trump would adopt Putin's policies... He never said that and he didn't say that Trump implied it he said flat-out let me repeat that again flat out... liberal histrionics.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

So... when you're the president of the United States you have this little button that you keep in your pocket and whenever you get pissed off you could just push it and it will automatically launch nuclear missiles against your enemy... is that how it works... oh my God I guess we're all doomed... There's no procedure in place or any checks and balances Trump can just push that button anytime he wants two o'clock in the morning 5 o'clock at night or he can accidentally push it kind of like butt dialing your cell phone.

You people kill me... Nothing but liberal histrionics and blather.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote George:

Quote:

The problem of the failure of our NATO allies to live up to their formal committments to NATO spending is at least 45 years old now.

And yet in those 45 years, Russia not only was unable to extend its reach into Western Europe, it actually lost its Eastern European Empire, most which countries applied to and became part of NATO. And guess what-Russia hasn't returned to take those countries back, despite the fact that it is clear it would like to.

So obviously, finances have not prevented NATO from doing its very important job superbly. All without any public airing of grievances about finances sending messages to America's enemies that NATO is divided. To the world, NATO is totally united. A united front is NATO's strength, and Trump is doing his level best to erode that unity as publicly as possible. Trump's ass-backwards reversal of priorities-from the traditional putting America's and Europe's security first and putting finances second to one where NATO's finances are put first and America's security is put second-disqualifies Trump immediately from consideration for the presidency.

1 Reply

When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know